Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The impact of pregnancy on pelvic organ prolapse following surgical repair is not well understood. We describe five cases of pregnancy following uterine-sparing surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. We analyzed the changes in women’s Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scores. We hypothesized there would be significant improvement in anterior and apical prolapse after surgery and no recurrence of prolapse after pregnancy.
Methods
We performed a retrospective review of the electronic medical record for cases of uterine-sparing apical suspension performed between January 2004 and December 2012 at Boston Medical Center. Student’s t-test for paired design was used to compare the change in POP-Q score at points Aa, Ba and C obtained at preoperative, postoperative and postpartum visits.
Results
Subjects in our series demonstrated significant improvement in their prolapse at all POP-Q points of interest between the pre- and postoperative visits, particularly at point C. There was a slight increase in POP-Q score from the postoperative visit to the postpartum visit, but this change was not statistically significant.
Conclusions
Our findings are consistent with previous literature, suggesting that the results of uterine-sparing apical prolapse repair are maintained after pregnancy. Women may be counseled to consider surgical prolapse repair even if they have not completed childbearing.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286.
Fayyad AM, Siozos CS. Safety and one year outcomes following vaginally assisted laparoscopic uterine sacropexy (VALUES) for advanced uterine prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(3):345–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22433.
Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, Strauss LT, Xia Z, Peterson HB. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988−1990. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83(4):549–55.
Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG. 2010;117(1):62–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02396.x.
Rahmanou P, White B, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1- to 4-year follow up of women postoperatively. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):131–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2209-5.
Lewis CM, Culligan P. Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(7):957–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1631-9.
Pandeva I, Mistry M, Fayyad A. Efficacy and pregnancy outcomes of laparoscopic single sheet mesh sacrohysteropexy. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):787–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23026.
Balsak D, Eser A, Erol O, Deniz Altintas D, Aksin S. Pregnancy and vaginal delivery after sacrohysteropexy. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:305107. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/305107.
Hefni M, El-Toukhy T. Sacrospinous cervico-colpopexy with follow-up 2 years after successful pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;103(2):188–90.
Maher CF, Carey MP, Murray CJ. Laparoscopic suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(6):1010–4.
Albowitz M, Schyrba V, Bolla D, Schoning A, Hornung R. Pregnancy after a laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: a case report. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014;74(10):947–9.
Busby G, Broome J. Successful pregnancy outcome following laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for second degree uterine prolapse. Gynecol Surg. 2010;7:271–3.
Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Pregnancy following laparoscopic hysteropexy-a case series. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1017-.
Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1245–50.
Szymanowksi P, Szepienic W, Stuwczynski K, Gruszecki P. Cesarean section after laparoscopic hysteropexy with Richardson’s lateral repair and Burch operation—case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2019;59:185–9.
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.
Rogers RG, Nolen TL, Weidner AC, et al. Surgical outcomes after apical repair for vault compared with uterovaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(3):475–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002492.
Carramão S, Auge AP, Pacetta AM, Duarte E, Ayrosa P, Lemos NL, et al. A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: hysteropexy versus hysterectomy. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2009;36(1):65–72.
Blandon RE, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ 3rd, Schleck CD, Babalola EO, Zinsmeister AR, et al. Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):664.e 1–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TM Adegoke: Manuscript writing, manuscript editing.
O Vragovic: Data management, data analysis, manuscript editing.
CD Yarrington: Manuscript editing.
JR Larrieux: Project development, project management, data collection, manuscript editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Presentations
Successful Pregnancy and Outcomes after Sacrohysteropexy for Uterine Prolapse, International Continence Society, 48th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, August 28–31, 2018
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Adegoke, T.M., Vragovic, O., Yarrington, C.D. et al. Effect of pregnancy on uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 31, 657–662 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04179-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04179-2